UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1076

MARTIN RUGAMBA,
Plaintiff Appellant,
v.
ROCKLEDGE BUS (TOUR), INC.; ROCKLEDGE BUS (TOUR) INC.
SUPERVISOR; MTA POLICE OFFICER 1; MTA POLICE OFFICER 2; MTA
BUS DRIVER; MTA TRAIN OPERATOR; AMTRAK 3 UNKNOWN AGENTS;
7-ELEVEN, INC.; 7-ELEVEN, INC. 2 UNKNOWN EMPLOYEES; DOES
1-20,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. George L. Russell, III, District Judge.
(1:15-cv-03948-GLR)

Submitted:

June 23, 2016

Decided:

June 28, 2016

Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Martin Rugamba, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:
Martin Rugamba seeks to appeal the district courts order
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2012) complaint.
may

exercise

jurisdiction

only

over

final

orders,

This court
28

U.S.C.

1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders,

28

U.S.C.

Beneficial

1292

Indus.

(2012);
Loan

Fed.

Corp.,

R.

Civ.

P.

337

U.S.

541,

54(b);

Cohen

545-47

v.

(1949).

Because the deficiencies identified by the district court may be

remedied by the filing of an amended complaint, we conclude that
the order Rugamba seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor
an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.

Goode v. Cent.

Va. Legal Aid Socy, Inc., 807 F.3d 619, 623 (4th Cir. 2015);
Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d
1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993).
Accordingly,
jurisdiction.

we

dismiss

the

appeal

for

lack

of

We dispense with oral argument because the facts

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

before

this

court

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional

process.
DISMISSED